1. THE PHOTONIC CHARGE FIELDhttp://milesmathis.com/charge2.html - (What is "Charge"?)2. To explain the force between the electron and proton, the standard model now makes use of the "messenger photon," a so-called virtual particle that is made doubly virtual by always being "summed over" in a Feynmanian sense.3. This allows the standard model to have a force with no energy transfer.4. Physicists must be aware that you can't have forces without masses or energies, or the equivalent, but they also know that giving the charge field mass or energy of its own [would mean] quanta [matter?] must be radiating energy.5. If they radiate it, they lose it.6. The key to unlocking this mystery is contained in the realization that the idea of attraction is non-mechanical.7. This [means] [] All attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions.8. [W]e can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive.9. It is caused by radiation of these messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons).10. The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact.11. Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius.12. The other thing that my unified field allows us to do is discover the gravitational field at the quantum level.13. These two fields allow us to explain charge mechanically because they are in vector opposition.14. Gravity causes an apparent attraction and the B-field causes real repulsion.15. What we have is a small electron and a large proton (to simplify).16. Both are radiating B-photons.17. Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton.18. The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.19. But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field.20. Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field.21. [W]e have not brought the newly upgraded gravitational field into the mix.22. This field is going to cause an apparent attraction to all particles, just like the traditional field.23. What about current in a wire?24. Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire [LK: I think they travel at very low speed], or any conductor, because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.25. The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.26. This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.27. http://milesmathis.com/spin.pdf (GALACTIC PROOF of my QUANTUM SPIN MODEL)28. Charge is photons, E/M is ions.29. In other words, spinning photons in huge numbers cause ions to spin.30. But when we measure the E/M field, we are measuring the spin of the ions, not the photons.31. The photons are too small for our machines to measure directly, and we only infer the spin of the photons based on the spin of the ions.32. GYRO-STACKED PHOTON SPINSPHOTON SPIN, ANTIMATTER, MAGNETISMhttp://milesmathis.com/charge.html (Electrical Charge)33. [Regarding] spin of the elementary particles in the repulsing objects, [] spin causes the ejection or radiation.34. Charge is the mass or momentum of the ejected gas or radiation [of photons].35. http://milesmathis.com/stack.html (HOW TO BUILD A NUCLEUS without a Strong Force)36. The first postulate is that the E/M field is caused by an emission field.37. Protons must be emitting something in order to create the repulsion.38. The second postulate is that quanta are spinning.39. [B]aryons (protons and neutrons) have four stacked spins.40. It is these spins which will allow me to build the nucleus without the strong force.41. To begin, we will look only at the outer or z-spin of the baryon.42. The proton and neutron are both spinning, and since they are approximately the same size, their z-spins will have approximately the same angular momentum.43. What makes the two particles so different is that the proton is emitting a charge field and the neutron is not.44. The neutron is swallowing its charge field, since the photons cannot navigate [or exit] the maze of spins.45. The four spins of the neutron bring the photons back to the center, while the four spins of the proton allow the photons to escape.46. I have diagrammed this in previous papers.47. What this means for our analysis here is that the proton must be treated as an extended particle, while the neutron is treated as a discrete particle.48. In other words, in this first part of the analysis, the neutron is treated mainly as a z-spin, while the proton is treated as a z-spin plus the shell of emitted photons.49. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html (Unifying the Electron and Proton)50. [L]ight motion and interaction could be explained by stacked spins, each spin outside the gyroscopic influence of inner spins.51. I showed the existence of four spins, of relative size 1,2,4, and 8, each orthogonal to neighboring spins.52. In other words, most photons are spinning every way they can spin, axially and in the x, y, and z planes.53. In my paper on QCD, I applied this to baryons, showing that baryons also had all possible spins.54. In that paper I unified the proton and the neutron, showing that the difference between the two is only a difference in z-spin.55. We may [] deduce that the electron at rest is spinning only about its own axis.56. An electron with all possible stable spins is a proton, anti-proton, or neutron.57. An electron with no z-spin is a meson.58. [T]he wave characteristic of matter and of light is caused by stacked spins.59. http://milesmathis.com/elecpro.html (Unifying the Electron and Proton)60. The electron must be moving to express a wave [and] it must have a second spin [] from collision, we assume.61. And this second spin will add to the energy and therefore the apparent mass of the electron.62. A moving electron will become a sort of stable meson.63. It is primarily gaining energy from x-spin.64. http://milesmathis.com/photon.html (Unifying the Photon with other quanta)65. The [photon] mass should be proportional to the energy, but the energy is determined by both a and x-spins.66. The a-spin corresponds to the radius, but the x-spin is twice the a-spin.67. [T]he photon is two full levels below the electron and three levels below the proton.68. As the photon gather[s] spins, it stops acting like a simple particle with linear motion and starts acting like a little engine.69. The spins allow it to trap other photons.70. Specifically, the z-spin is orthogonal to the linear motion, which allows it to act like a scoop or an intake valve.71. Photons with only axial spin cannot resist this intake, and they are temporarily absorbed by the photon with z-spin.72. Intake of small photons begins to slow the large photon and it begins to turn into an electron.73. It gains mass and loses velocity.74. At some point it takes its fill of small photons and they start to spill out once more.75. This photon exhaust of this little engine is what we call charge.76. If you have enough of this exhaust, it begins to directionalize the residual photon wind, and this photon wind is what we call electricity.77. The spin of the photon wind is what we call magnetism.78. HOW PHOTONS TRAVELhttp://milesmathis.com/photon2.html (HOW DO PHOTONS TRAVEL?)79. Even if the photon were spinning at velocity c, one rotation must take some real time.80. While the surface of the photon is spinning, the photon as a whole is moving some linear distance x.81. [T]he velocity stretch[es] out the wavelength[.]82. [W]e developed the at-rest wavelength from the B-photon and the moving wavelength from the infrared photon.83. We may assume that the infrared photon is about 4 times larger than our B-photon.84. [T]he small mass of the photon allows it to stack spins over a wide range of radii.85. The proton cannot add extra spins above the z-spin without creating instability.86. This is why "mesons" over the baryon size are not stable.87. The extra spins begin interfering with the energy of the inner spins.88. But with the photon [e]xtra spin levels do not cause appreciable slowing, nor [] instability.89. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on.90. >>>LK: a1 makes sense, but a2, a3 etc don't.91. This means that photons do not come in a continuous spectrum.92. If we measure light with an average wavelength in between those numbers, we must have a mixture of photons.93. ATOMIC FORCEShttp://milesmathis.com/waals.pdf (Replacing van der Waals Forces with the Charge Field)94. [Fudging of] the ideal gas laws [] to match data at [] (STP) [and then] a wider range of temperatures [] is where we get Keesom forces, Debye forces, the London dispersion force, and a host of other[s].95. [Even though much of new physics is statistical, they always forget to apply probabilities to their confirmations, by asking themselves if the standing interpretation is the most probable match to the new direct measurement.]96. We have never been told exactly how the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents the collapse of molecules.97. The electron simply doesn't have the energy to repel incoming molecules.98. [I]t isn't tiny electrons that provide this molecular exclusion, [but] the [photonic] charge field.99. The nucleus is emitting a heavy charge field of real photons, and these photons repel large intruders like molecules.100. [E]lectron orbital bonding was dead on arrival, contradicting its own field definitions [and] van der Waals forces are all DOA for the same reason.101. [T]here [are] no electron bonds, no electron orbitals, no PEP, and no electron wavefunction.102. [T]he wavefunction has to be given to the photons, not the electrons [].103. [T]he charge field is actually Maxwell's displacement field, which underlies and drives the E/M field.104. Keesom forces are always charge forces, whether [] dealing with ions or not.105. The multipole interactions prove that, since [] they [] match the charge profile of my diagrammed nucleus, which is taking in charge at the poles and emitting it via the [four-pointed] carousel level, [] a sort of quadrapole.106. In many cases, that will give us [] a hexapole.107. [] Debye force [] is defined as an attraction between a permanent multipole on one molecule and an induced multipole on another.108. [T]hey [wrongly] explain the polar nature of the molecules in terms of electrons being attracted or repelled by ends of a molecule.109. Molecules are more charge balanced than ions or even elements, but they still have field potentials.110. Current theory is correct in its explanation of induced poles, since one molecule can indeed induce field changes upon another molecule.111. But this is done through the already existing charge channels.112. These existing charge channels are natural outcomes of the nuclear structure, and cannot be induced past a certain point; but as we saw in bonding of elements, one element certainly can influence the structure of another.113. [] London dispersion forces [] (LDF) were thought to be necessary to explain molecules without permanent multipole moments.114. However, [] every element is polar [and] every molecule must be as well.115. [Each particle is constantly spinning and so is each atom, so unbalanced proton/neutron structures are unstable.]116. Argon has a weak charge field, not a zero charge field.117. We now know this is true of the noble gasses, since we have recently manufactured compounds with them.118. BLACK-BODY RADIATIONhttp://milesmathis.com/bbody.pdf (Black-body Radiation is the Charge Field)119. [A]ll of quantum mechanics was based on quantum energy steps on the electron when it should have been based on a quantized photon.120. [B]lack-body radiation [] has always been known to be photonic.121. If we take G as the size transform between the two fields [gravity and charge] — taking the volume of one down to the density of the other — we find that the charge photon must peak at a size G times less than the proton.122. A simple calculation then shows that average charge photon is in the infrared, with a wavelength of about 2 μm.123. Amazingly, this is where black-body radiation also peaks.124. Since baryonic matter is taking up 5% of the energy field, that 5% isn't available to be recycled.125. So a real body can't be a perfect black body [and] real radiation hits a limit at 95%.126. Soil [] that exceeds .95 is soil still in the ground, and the IR thermometer is of course pointing down to the Earth to take the reading.127. [T]hat must skew the measurement, since charge is coming out of the Earth.128. [V]ery hot bodies peak in the visible [because] particles stack on new spins at higher energies.129. [A]t a given charge energy level, the charge photons will stack on another spin, becoming more energetic.130. They each then have more radius, more angular momentum, and [] move up the energy scale [] from IR to visible.131. Black-body radiation is defined as E/M radiation that was converted from thermal energy.132. But [b]lack-body radiation is not E/M radiation [but] photonic radiation, as I reminded you above.133. [] I have shown that heat and thermal energy are also photonic.134. Heat comes into a body from the outside, via the charge field.135. The body then re-emits a part of this excess energy in the light spectrum, which is also charge.136. Heat may be carrying ions, since charge normally does.137. The Draper point [is the] temperature at which the charge photons stack on another spin.138. You can [] see clear evidence of this from the colors at higher temperatures.139. Black-body radiation doesn't move continuously through the visible band, giving us yellow, green, cyan, blue and purple.140. Instead, it jumps from IR to red to white, with only a mix of red and white between.141. [By] current theory, we would expect the peak to move above the visible.142. [T]he IR photon has stacked on four spins.143. It can stack on a fifth, but at that point [] the photon becomes an electron.144. [It]s drop in velocity prevents the radiation peak from continuing to climb.145. If [there were] orbiting electrons [] involved in this quantization, we should see the elemental and orbital energy signatures. But we don't.146. [B]lack-body emission follows pretty much the same curve for all elements or substances, which is strong evidence the electrons are not involved.147. This is precisely why they tell you that a black-body cavity can be taken as a photon gas.148. No orbiting electrons in a photon gas [].

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:34 pm; edited 2 times in total

1. Variables in Physics Equations Must Have DimensionsI show that you can't assign a cardinal number to a point, which begins the revolution in both physics and mathematics. The point and the instant are jettisoned from physics, and all math and science since Euclid must be redefined.

2. Unified Field TheoryIn my Unified Field Theory, using Newton's gravitational equation as a compound equation, I separate out the foundational E/M field and then reunify, including Relativity transforms. In a related paper, I show that G acts as a transform between these two fields. Likewise, I pull apart Coulomb's equation, showing that it is another unified field equation in disguise. In another related paper I show that this foundational E/M field is emitted by the central wall in the double slit experiment, creating the interference pattern before a single photon moves through the apparatus.

3. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Superposition is FalseSuperposition is explained mechanically and visually, in a rather simple manner. Using the gyroscope, I physically create x and y spins and draw the physical waves created. This explains the wave motion, it dispels many statistical mysteries, and it falsifies the Copenhagen interpretation. Using this same spin model, I am able to show the make-up of all fundamental particles, including the electron and proton, without quarks. I am able to unify the electron, proton, neutron, and all mesons, by developing a simple spin equation. With four stacked spins I can produce all known particles and effects.

4. Calculus Must Reject Zero Differentials & InfinitiesCalculus is redefined on the finite differential, which will revolutionize the teaching of calculus as well as QED and Relativity. In fact, the fields of all higher math must be redefined. This discovery ultimately bypasses renormalization, making it unnecessary.

5. Circular Motion & Orbit Formulas Are CorrectedI show that many of Newton's important lemmae are false, including his basic trig lemmae. His proof of a = v^2/r is compromised by this, which forces us to re-analyze circular motion. The mechanics of his orbit also falls, which requires us to hypothesize a third motion to stabilize the orbit in real time. I have shown that this motion must be caused by the E/M field. This also applies to Kepler's ellipse. And it explains the mechanics of tides. [] I also redrew the line between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, showing that the orbital velocity must be an acceleration. This requires a rewriting of many basic equations and cleans up many errors and mysteries, including a few of those in renormalization.

6. The Precession of Mercury Calculation CompletionI correct all the numbers involved in the perihelion precession of Mercury, proving that Einstein's analysis was very incomplete.

7. Relativity SolutionsI solved the problem of relativity, finding the simple and basic algebraic errors at their inception. I offered corrected transforms for time, length, velocity, mass, and momentum. I exploded the twin paradox, and did so by showing incontrovertibly that relative motion toward causes time contraction, not dilation. I solved the Pioneer Anomaly. I also proved that Newton's kinetic energy equation is not an approximation; it is an exact equation. I explain the cause of the mass limit for the proton in [an] accelerator.- Some Minkowski & Einstein Postulates are False[] Minkowski's four-vector field is shown to be false, not only because it uses Einstein's false postulates and axioms, but because its own new axiom—that time may travel orthogonally to x,y,z—is also false. [] I prove that General Relativity is falsely grounded on the same misunderstandings as the calculus, which is one reason it can't be joined to QED. I prove that curved space is an unnecessary abstraction and that the tensor calculus is a mathematical diversion, a hiding in esoterica. I prove this by expressing the field with simple algebra, taking five equations to do what Einstein did in 44 pages.- Interferometer & Light Clock Diagram FixesI show the error in the interferometer and light clock diagrams, proving that no fringe effect should have been expected. The light clock creates the same mathematical triangle and falls to the same argument.

8. String Theory FalsehoodAs a bonus, I prove that String Theory is an historical embarrassment.

9. Science Dictatorship"I am not required to accept the word of any master." [Latin] This is the motto of the Royal Society of Science in England, meant to assert the independence of science from various authorities; but ironically we must now apply it to them, the various academic societies in the US, and to the standard model worldwide, which has taken over the dictatorial powers of the old Church and Monarch that Galileo and Newton had to resist. Mainstream science has itself become the authorita[arian] and tyrannical magister or master.

Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

WHAT IS CHARGE?_1 The idea of attraction is non-mechanical._2 This means all attractions must be only apparent--the result of complex motions._3 We can now re-define the charge field as a bombarding field only. It is always repulsive; never attractive._4 It is caused by radiation of messenger photons, which I am going to re-dub B-photons (for bombarding photons)._5 The repulsion is caused by an old-fashioned force by contact._6 Of course this means that the B-photons are not virtual: they have energy, mass equivalence, and even radius._7 We have a small electron and a large proton (to simplify)._8 Let us say that the radiation from the electron is relatively negligible, so that we can look only at the radiation from the proton._9 The proton is emitting a bombarding field that tends to drive off all particles that come near.*_10 But it will drive off larger particles more successfully than smaller particles, since the smaller particles will encounter a smaller cross-section of the field._11 Also remember that any other proton that enters the field of our first proton will also be emitting its own B-field._12 What about current in a wire?*_13a Free electrons travel at high speed in a conducting wire, or any conductor,*_13b because the B-field is moving in only one direction in that substance.*_14 The B-field acts as a river, moving the electrons along by direct contact.*_15 This B-field river can be created in any number of ways, either by having lots of radiating particles at one end of the wire and few or none at the other, or by directionalizing the B-field through the shape of the molecules in the substance.

HOW A BATTERY CIRCUIT WORKS.16 A reader sent me a link to an article from 2002 by Ian Sefton of University of Sydney, who tries to explain how a circuit works..17 However, Sefton's explanation of the circuit is still not mechanical, as I think he would admit._18 Can we fill in his field model? Yes, since we now have photons to work with._19 In a series of papers, I have resuscitated the old spinning corpuscle of Newton, or the vortex of Maxwell, updating past centuries more fully than anyone thought possible._20 If you read the page at Wiki on electrical circuits, you get the impression that electrons travel through the circuit, creating the energy transfer._21 Sefton shows us that is false, and I have nothing to say against him. His argument in that regard is convincing.*_22 The electrons are simply moving too slow._23 The flow of electrons isn't causing the lightbulb to light up, and the field doesn't explain it either._24 It is thought that the circuit acts as a medium through which charge can pass, but Sefton has already shown that isn't really the case._25 Whatever is passing is passing both through the wires and through the space between them directly, so it would appear that charge photons don't require the wires to pass from battery to bulb._26 The wires are providing some link, but they are not providing the path.*_27 We should read the wires as an extension of the battery, not as a path._28 If we think of charge as a density difference instead of abstract potential, we can clarify the mechanics here.*_29 The ionic content of the battery has set up not a separation of charge, but a density difference in the photon field._30 The photons are much denser on one side of the battery than the other.*_31 Why._It could be any number of reasons, but a common reason in normal batteries is that chemical reactions separate large ions from small ones._32 In other words, if free protons are pushed to one side and free electrons to the other, the protons will be recycling far more photons._33 The photon density will be far higher on one side than the other, and by the rules of entropy or statistics, they will move from high density to low.

_34 Now, if we extend wires to the bulb, we haven't provided the path to the bulb that the photons must take, since the photons need no path of that kind.*_35 What we have done is prime the field, like what happens in wireless transmission._36 The wires allow for an initial induction or matching of the present fields, so that photons leaving the battery can affect the photons in the bulb._37 You can't build a path by multiplying E times B, since B is a spin._38 Linear motions make paths; but spins do not make linear paths._39 If we define S as the statistical motion of the photons of the battery, then a better equation is S + E the path to the bulb.*_40 From it we can see that it is not photons or electrons traveling from battery to bulb that creates the energy rise in the bulb and its lighting.*_41 It is actually photons moving across the bulb, just as they moved across the battery._42 Because the photons are denser at the bottom of the battery, they will also be denser at the bottom of the bulb, in Sefton's diagram._43 Remember, the top wire is positive [higher photon density?] all the way to the bulb, and the bottom wire is negative [lower photon density?] all the way to the bulb._44 To understand why this is, imagine that the bulb is more negative than any part of the battery._45 That doesn't have to be the case, but we will use it as the first example (and it does help).*_46 Statistics tells us that all the photons in the battery will be attracted to all parts of the bulb.*_47 But since density is spatial, it matters where the terminals are located in space.*_48 As the photons move over to the bulb, they naturally "drag" their old densities with them, simply because more photons will be coming from the denser areas._49 If the negative terminal is low, for instance, the density will remain lower a few feet away._50 Unless the circuit is gigantic, we wouldn't expect the density differences to dissipate much._51 Distances don't mean much to photons, remember, since they are moving so fast._52 But if you check the latest theories, S is more strictly defined as the change of energy density .*_53 You should find it interesting that current theory uses density here, since I am defining the entire circuit, at the fundamental level, as an outcome of photon density variation._54 If you say you have a field, that implies a field of some things._55 To remain mechanical, the field must contain something, either atoms or molecules or electrons or asteriods._56 Asking what is in the field is a mechanical question, and mechanics is physics, not metaphysics._57 In addition, we can't have equal energy entering the wires from all directions._58 That would create zero potential in the wire, wouldn't it._59 There is no impulse to motion in the field between two numbers that are the same._60 Therefore, saying that energy follows lines of equal potential is like saying that water flows up. _It is a contradiction._61 But the current theory does not tell us what is setting up any of these fields of potentials, or why a charged particle placed at any point in the triple field moves one way instead of another._62 He takes E as given, when it is what we are trying to explain. _That is called begging the question._63 IF E is moving along the wire, WHY is it doing so._64 In my theory, there is no S, so I don't have to explain it._65 There is only E, and E is the linear motion of the photons._66 In my theory, neither S nor E are moving through the wire.*_67 As we will see below, some photons are initially moving in the wire to prime the field, but this movement isn't either S or E._68 It is a precursor to E, just as priming the field is a precursor to transmission in wireless.*_69 And yes, electrons may be caused to drift by collisions with these passing photons, but, as Sefton just proved, E cannot be this movement of the electrons, since it is too slow.*_70 The drift of electrons is just a side effect._71 The drift of electrons doesn't light the bulb, so it isn't what we are concerned with._72 If we had a true circuit, then both wires would be hot._73 But even in Sefton's field model, nothing is completing the circuit.*_74 If this is the case, we must explain why we even need to complete the loop with the second wire._75 We know that we do, since if we don't, the bulb doesn't light up. _Why.*_76 A related question is why we need the wires at all._77 My photon densities should be moving over there regardless, since photons are not contained._78 Therefore, if we are asking why we need the wires here, it may help to look at how wireless transmission works, to see why it isn't working here.*_79 In a nutshell, in wireless transmission source and receiver have to be coupled, which means the field in the receiver has to be primed to match the source._80 This priming is done via the E/M field between the source and receiver._81 Since the Earth's atmosphere is already an E/M field, it can easily be used for this purpose, as Tesla discovered.*_82 The problem is, in normal conditions, the field is not coherent in any way. _It is scrambled, relative to source and receiver. _Charge photons are rushing around in every direction.*_83 But by sending out a pre-signal, as it were, a path is created for the photons. _A coherence in the field is created.*_84 When this field reaches the receiver, the E/M field surrounding the atoms there is also made coherent.*_85 This coherence can be a coherence of frequency or it can be a coherence of spin (magnetism), or both._86 This means that the charge emitted by particles in the receiver will be as like as possible in type to the charge emitted by the source._87 Like charge couples most easily. _Charge that is directionalized, frequency matched, and spin matched will maximize the coupling._88 With this in mind, we see that the reason there is no wireless transmission between a battery and a bulb is that there is no pre-signal. _The field hasn't been primed.*_89 The photons at the source don't match the photons at the receiver in any way, so there isn't any appreciable coupling.*_90 And this means that the wires in a wire circuit aren't really carrying charge, they are simply priming the field. _The wires supply the pre-signal._91 They mirror the function of the conductor in wireless._92 Some amount of photons pass through the wires, and they cohere the E/M field inside the bulb._93 This causes a sort of mutual induction, although most of the effect is going from battery to bulb (since most the photons are being recycled in the battery)._94 And since the heaviest photon traffic is from battery to bulb, this traffic will cause the electrons in the wire to move toward the bulb, by direct bombardment._95 This is what has fooled everyone. _They see that electron movement toward the bulb and mistake it for the mechanism. _It isn't the mechanism, it is just a by-product.*_96 But why must we have two wires then. _Why doesn't one wire work to prime the field. _Because one wire doesn't allow for induction.*_97 Induction is caused by photon modulation of some sort, and you can't have this modulation without some appreciable width of influence.*_98 If you had a really wide wire and a perfectly directionalized connection, you could create the induction with one wire, since in that case you would be mirroring the wireless set-up._99 In wireless, the atmosphere works like a really wide single wire with a pre-existing field._100 But a normal copper wire is too small in cross section to allow the photons to arrive at the source with the proper information._101 You can send information through a single wire, but you can't prime the E/M field through a small single wire (under normal circumstances).

_102 To simplify the mechanism for this paper, think of the photons arriving at the bulb and speeding out of the wire.*_103 Following Huygens principle, we can imagine the photons fanning out, as from a point source.*_104 That fanning out ruins the ability of the photons to cohere the field inside the bulb._105 The local field can't read what the new photons are trying to tell them, since the fanning out is changing the information every moment.*_106 If the field is supposed to be modulated by frequency for instance, that fanning out is changing the frequency._107 Photons coming out near the edges of the wire—the ones fanning the most— will be shifted relative to the local field._108 The field inside the bulb doesn't know what to make of the new photons._109 Very little of the field inside the bulb will be modulated.*_110 Induction requires a resonance, and a fan can't create this resonance.*_111 But if we allow even two point sources to enter the bulb simultaneously, with some separation, the local field can read the information in the new photons.*_112 How. _Because the two new fans will cross. _One new influence won't create a pattern, two will.*_113 Remember that waves are basically very simple fixed patterns. _It is these waves we are modulating in some fashion to create the induction._114 Well, a fan doesn't create a new pattern or wave that will stand._115 A Huygens fan just looks like a stirring to the local field._116 If anything, it will decohere or mix the field inside the bulb, not modulate it._117 But two such fans create crossing points that make a consistent pattern._118 This pattern can be read as a wave by the local field, and the local field can therefore be influenced by it in a positive manner.*_119 The field in the bulb can therefore be made like the field in the battery, and we have induction._120 I have said that the wires simply provide the induction.*_121 But if that is so, then why does the induction cease when the wires are cut._122 According to my theory, shouldn't we have wireless transmission after the initial priming, even with a battery. _No, of course not.*_123 In real wireless, do we continue to have transmission when the conductor is turned off. _No.*_124 The reason for this is that the ambient field rushes back in in both cases, rescrambling the paths._125 The coherence has to be maintained or it will immediately be lost._126 We can imagine E/M fields that might maintain this coherence even after the wires were cut or the conductor turned off, but the Earth's atmosphere is not such a field._127 In addition, it might seem that by my theory, both wires would be hot._128 Since photons are moving from battery to bulb in both wires, why don't we see electrons moving the same in both wires._129 Because, again, the two poles aren't the same, as a matter of photon density. _We have a much larger density at one pole._130 That is what created the initial energy field in the battery._131 The photons moving to the bulb from that pole will be much denser in the wire, and will make it much hotter.*_132 This means that the neutral wire is not really neutral, it is just relatively neutral._133 It is a lot "cooler" than the other wire, because very few photons need to move through it to create the induction._134 Therefore, we would expect some motion of electrons toward the bulb, but not much._135 The neutral or return wire in a battery is not a ground, so nothing is returning and nothing is neutral._136 If electricity was returning to the battery, the wire would be hot in the other direction, right._137 But under normal circumstances, we would actually expect the electrons to be moving very slowly toward the bulb, which means we have neither a circuit nor a return nor a ground.*_138 S is the statistical linear motion of the photons, before we prime the field. _It is the linear motion before the induction and before the "circuit" is created.*_139 After the mutual induction takes place, and the fields are cohered, then E will be created.*_140 5) Anytime you have information that moves at the speed of light, you should assume you have photons involved, not electrons._141 6) Potential differences in this problem are actually variations in photon densities. _Rather than think of potential, we should think of wind. _But here, we let our wind vary in density, not speed.*_142 7) Like everything else, electrical induction is a mechanical process. _It is photons colliding with other photons, and informing them via a resonance; just as one river entering a larger river will be informed by that river (as a matter of speed, say).*_143 8)The wires in a simple circuit perform precisely the same field priming that a conductor does in wireless. _That is, the wires produce the initial induction, and after that, the field of the battery can pass to the receiver with or without the wires.*_144 And finally, we have learned that different substances actually create different charge. _We can deduce this just from the fact that we need induction. _If all elementary particles and atoms and molecules were emitting the same charge photons, then we wouldn't need induction._145 The photons in the battery would already match the photons in the bulb, and we would have wireless connections between everything, without wires and without conductors._146 We wouldn't need towers creating paths; everything would be resonating with everything else, and it would be a mess, frankly._147 So we have discovered that different substances emit different photons.*_148 The size and shape of the emitters determine the characteristics of the charge. _This means that we might create induction, or maximize it, by making our receivers out of the same material as our emitters._149 In some cases that might be impossible. _For instance, if our source of emission is free protons, it would be hard to make a lightbulb out of free protons. _Even hydrogen wouldn't mimic free protons, since the shape would be different._150 But it might be possible to make a battery and a bulb out the same materials, or out of materials that created charge of the same profile. _Just an idea._151 It might also facilitate transmission to have the receiver directly above the source, so that the charge field of the Earth will help rather than interfere. _The difference might be small, but it might also be measurable.